How commonly is the GM actually the ultimate arbiter?

[Morrus]

Many times, advice in response to GM/player issues seems to revolve around "You're the GM; pronounce X". Whether X is removing a person from the game, or barring a class or race, or what-have-you.

In my experience, though, the social environment doesn't really permit authority at that level. Sure, the GM runs the game; he isn't in charge of the social experience, though. His authority is limited by the people around him. While he has a role in the game, he's also just one of a half dozen friends getting together to enjoy a social activity together.

So in your games, how much power does the GM enjoy? Does this extend to the group makeup? Is his word law? Has the increase in player controlled narrative in RPGs over the years reduced this since the 70s and 80s?

I'm not talking about general jerk behaviour. Sure, any GM who's just a jerk is going to find himself playing alone in short order. So, excluding outliers of extreme antisocial behaviour - how much power does the GM have in (a) your game and (b) your group [during the game; if he has any outside the game then Jack Chick was right....]

 

[Greg K]

When it comes to setting limits on the campaign, house rules, etc, the GM is in charge. It has been this way with every gaming group with whom I have played regardless of system since I started gaming with the the Holmes blue book. To date, it seems to be the case with other groups that I know.
When another person takes over GMing, the same holds true for them.

As for removing people, among the groups with whom I have played, the GM is free to remove any player they want. This does not mean that discussing it with the group is not a good idea. It also does not prevent the person from returning if someone else in the group is GMing (unless the owner of the venue states otherwise).

In the last 15-20yrs, the groups with whom I have played with have removed four people.
1. I removed one ( a casual gamer with ADD and hygiene issues) from a D&D game. I did not talk to anyone else, but I knew players took issue with his hygiene (he came directly from jogging without showering).

2. My roommate got kicked out of a 30-50 person LARP group (Actually, a few other people also got themselves banned by the storyteller over a two year period, but I don't know the details)

3. I could have banned someone upon returning to my group after a hiatus. Instead, when the person that took over GMing wanted to hand over GM chores to me, I refused to do so as long as my roommate and his best friend wanted to keep the offending player (he was a close friend to the best friend and all three hung out outside of gaming).
When I did so, I knew it was only a matter of time before the player pissed the two of them off and got himself booted. Sure enough, it only took four to six sessions to get the first of temporary bans from my roommate, who took over GM chores. Within another month, the guy earned his third strike in a big way and my roommate kicked out for being a "tool" at the game table (After cooling down, my roommate was willing to hang with the guy away from gaming, but was not willing to game with him again).

4. This person was a drama queen who got himself booted for arguing with the Storyteller of a tabletop oWoD game. Of course, it didn't help that he insulted another player.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

IME, GM authority extends fairly far, but is not absolute. Frex, I have my GM foibles (hello, hex maps!), which many players don't care for but will put up with for the sake of not having to GM themselves. But there are times when GM authority just doesn't matter:

1. A couple years ago I created what I thought was a really neat social combat subsystem for my D&D campaign. But after foisting it upon my players twice, they made it clear that they hated it; so I didn't push my authority. I honestly think they would have rebelled had I insisted on my pet subsystem. Live and learn, right?

2. At one point I had two siblings in the same game. The sister was a friend, while the brother I knew only thru her. After about a year of gaming, the brother went nuts. Literally. When he started threatening to have his dad beat me up -- which I would have found hilarious had I not been sick of everything else he'd spouted off until that point -- I kicked him out. I did it diplomatically, but his sister was nevertheless lost to my friendship and the game forever. I guess you could say that my authority prevailed, but at a high cost.

So no, GM authority is not the be-all and end-all.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, GM authority is sitting at two places at my table, s two of us take turns running, and in many cases, even after discussing things, we agree the DM's rule or interpretation stands. It makes less trouble with roadbumps in the game.

As far as booting people, we have never done that.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

In the game, my GMs and I (when I'm the GM) are always the final arbiter, but rarely the only arbiter. I've never gamed with the power-mad stereotype, but have gamed with a number of regular GMs and one-shot GMs (I've done both as well) who have all held the authority of final arbiter in the game. How much debate is allowed depends on the GM and the situation, but in all cases the GM is who makes the ruling and the players accept it. This, of course, is part of the unwritten social contract to which each of those players agreed (explicitly or implicitly).

The host is final arbiter at the table for any manners unrelated to the game, but one is rarely needed.

EDIT: Regarding my perception of how this has evolved over the years (with regard to more narrative games and such), I haven't seen any change. I think that might be due to almost every instance of GM arbitration, the decision being made was always one of interpretation of rules/results/actions/etc. and never one where said interpretation unfairly removed any player agency given by the system.

 

[Morrus]

The host is final arbiter at the table for any manners unrelated to the game, but one is rarely needed.

Of course. If someone's hosting the game in their home, there are issues they can certainly overrule the GM on. As you say, though, those sorts of things are unrelated to the game itself and should hopefully never happen.

 

[WhimsyTheFae]

Of course. If someone's hosting the game in their home, there are issues they can certainly overrule the GM on. As you say, though, those sorts of things are unrelated to the game itself and should hopefully never happen.

Agreed. I guess that the simple answer is that the GM has always had this authority within the games in which I've partaken but has never abused it and has rarely made a unilateral decision due to it (exceptions would include rules adjudication where the GM is very confident in his/her interpretation).

I do want to note that I edited my response above to include a bit on how the increase in more narrative games has (or in my case hasn't) affected GM authority.

 

[Ahnehnois]

My experience is that major houserules are de rigueur and most credible DMs will make significant alterations to the rules before the game starts to facilitate their goals. I've never seen that questioned. And really, the DM is choosing the system and the parameters of character creation and the campaign and world to begin with.

Once the game actually starts, the DM is in complete control. He adjudicates all the in-game outcomes and in general is in charge of the out of game social situation. Typically, DMs will run roughshod over even heavily customized rules in the interests of time and fun. A DM might entertain arguments from players: for example, I tend to consult them on issues of historical or scientific plausibility. But there can be no questioning the finality of the DM's word.

The only player I had who ever really did that was a problem player who would say things like "I have +30 on Knowledge checks and the highest DC in the book is 30, so you have to tell me whatever I want to know" or "it's not fair that my nemeses know that I'm a pyro and bought rings of fire resistance in advance". He was a founding group member, but also had significant personal issues and was clearly trying to be disruptive. That's pretty much how I view anyone who questions the authority of the person in charge. Conversely, good players accept their roles and work within them. If they want to DM, they DM. (For the record, I'm not a great player for precisely that reason: it's hard for me not to try to DM).

A general truism about drama is that once the audience knows what the story is about, the story is over. In my view, the goal of the DM is not only to exert as much influence as possible over the game, but to do so specifically to deceive the players about what is going on. Just like any other storyteller.

 

[Storminator]

When we played as teens in the early 80s, we had a DM Dagger. It was a fancy letter opener, and if the DM's rulings were out of line, he got that dagger hucked into his chest. And then by common agreement, he had to politely hand that dagger back to the players. We were willing to put up with some rat bastardry, but we had limits.

It's been a long time since I played with any DM that arbitrarily imposed house rules without the common consent of the table. I try to use as few house rules as possible, and none of them have been introduced without a lot of discussion and consensus.

Currently I'm devolving as much authority as possible to my players. They determine when we level up, propose new and modified house rules, sit in judgment on rules questions, etc. I devise plot twists and run monsters.

I think all of the changes in my gaming can be attributed to aging (gracefully, I assure you!) and not to any rules evolution.

PS

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I share DMing duties with another DM in our group, so even if we swung that kind of power, it would be a committee rather than individual fiat. We tend to bring new people in after playing with them in other settings (RPGA games, etc), so we avoid the necessity of dealing with problem players.